Eugene trial court acquits worker of sander theft amid doubt over permission

A State trial court in Eugene acquitted Colin Mercer of stealing a shop sander, rejecting Oregon's request for a theft conviction and a proportionate, noncustodial sentence. The court found that he took and returned the tool, but that prosecutors had not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly took it without permission.

The dispute turned on the difference between breaking a workplace checkout rule and committing theft. Mercer acknowledged taking the sander after the owner told him to leave it, but maintained that he understood a supervisor had subsequently approved an overnight loan.

The charge was dismissed by acquittal. No sentence or payment was ordered; the State had expressly declined to seek replacement value for the returned tool.

The owner's refusal, Mercer's acknowledgment and the unsigned checkout entry gave the prosecution substantial support. The supervisor's later written response was conditional and directed Mercer back to the owner, rather than clearly overriding the refusal.

But Mercer's 5:09 p.m. message complicated that account. Referring to an outside conversation, he recorded his understanding that the supervisor had approved and promised to return the sander by 8:45. The supervisor did not reply.

The court treated that message as contemporaneous evidence of Mercer's stated belief—not independent proof of approval. His account of the outside conversation came through counsel, not admitted witness testimony, and the State acknowledged having no independent evidence of what was said.

Under ORS 136.415, Mercer did not have to prove permission. The earlier refusal and missing checkout entry did not eliminate the reasonable possibility that he believed approval had followed the cancellation of an evening job. Openly carrying and returning the tool were relevant circumstances, but neither independently resolved his state of mind.

The State argued that the owner's express refusal remained controlling. It relied on the supervisor's instruction to check with the owner and a checkout page requiring owner approval and a signed entry. Mercer had initialed an acknowledgment of that rule three months earlier.

The defense argued that circumstances changed after the job cancellation and that the later conversation explained Mercer's belief. It said his unanswered message, open carrying of the sander and return before opening undermined proof of theft. Failing to complete checkout paperwork, it submitted, did not establish criminal intent.

The exchanges unfolded over one afternoon: the owner's refusal arrived at 2:12 p.m.; Mercer asked the supervisor about borrowing the sander at 4:38 p.m.; and his message recording his understanding followed at 5:09 p.m.

The acquittal did not establish that the supervisor actually authorized the loan or excuse the missed checkout procedure. It resolved the narrower criminal question: the evidence left reasonable doubt about whether Mercer knew he lacked permission.